Reply to Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm the poster to whom you're replying. (Thanks for the "full credit." The academic still lingering inside of me takes solace in this meaningless accolade. Seriousness is a goal unto itself.)

Yes, I would gladly support this plan. [b]I suspect there would still be overcrowding, but I don't view it to be an impediment at that level of crowding. [/b]

Is this politically feasible? I'm skeptical but ignorant.

One thing to note is that given Deal's screwy catchment basin, such a proposal would impede improvement to Roosevelt (and other mythical desirable EOTP HSs) since Crestwood, Shep. Park, etc. would stay with Wilson. Getting critical mass is a b!tch; just ask Hardy. [/quote]

I didn't mean the "credit" in a snarky way - sorry if it came across that way   :oops:  Seriousness is important to me, seriously.

Your point in bold by the way is pretty much the most important overlooked point for me (or most overlooked important point). I think the DME and staff maybe get this, because they are at least looking at some data. Most armchair quarterbacks aren't looking at any data. The attempts on DCUM to model the overcrowding into the future have been very rudimentary, mine included. That's what I meant when I said that the real work is analyzing different tweaks of Policy Option B, data in hand.

Regarding the impediment to improving other schools, I know this point is shared by some, but I just don't agree with it in principle and I don't buy the empirical claims behind it.

Empirically, I don't buy that people who deliberately bought or rented in the Deal zone, specifically to send kids to Deal, would be happy to go anywhere just because you rezone them. I think they are more likely to move schools or move residence.

And on the principle, even if I believed the empirical story, it's wrong to try to force people to participate in this kind of school-building project. It's something people can choose and it's admirable, but it should never be a rationale for a boundary change. The only defensible rationale for cutting anyone out of a high-performing school is overcrowding. Trying to shanghai people into building other schools is a massive changing of the game/moving the goalposts half way through the game and it's not right. People who have moved into a neighborhood for a particular school should only be cut as a last resort.

For those who don't see this, imagine if Deal were high quality but half-empty. Can you imagine arguing that people should be forced out of it to build McFarland/Roosevelt? Clearly not. When you do this thought experiment, you see that the overcrowding question is (and ought to be) providing 100% of the justification for possibly zoning people out, and ethically/morally the creation of an "incentive" to build a failing school is providing 0% justification.

Regarding the overcrowding question, the data has to be studied, but regarding this other question, it's very clear to me.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics